That is seriously off from Oxfam (although not surprising for them, I'd say). What a perfect way to kill the golden goose and spite themselves.
Aside from the volume of harassment to give, why would they target the 'recipient' and not the actual person who has supported/given to them for thr 'present'? Doesn't that go against data protection laws?
This certainly serves as a very stark warning not to give to them at all. Surely there must be far smaller, much less bloated and greedy charities, who just get on with the cause rather than making it all about them?
I can't remember their name, but that charity that acts as a go-between to enable people in wealthy countries to give micro-loans to (usually women) in poor countries, for them to start and run sustainable businesses sounds amazing.
Also, not the point at all, but I can't imagine 'giving' somebody a load of condoms as a 'present' for somebody else to benefit from!
"Happy birthday, Dad - I bought you a massive bumper pack of Johnnies!!" = awkward.
"No, no, they're not for you to use - they're for a stranger!!" = probably even more awkward.
I mean, I can certainly see why they're so greatly needed by people in developing countries; but could they not, say, just increase the cost of a goat by 10% and use the extra funds to discreetly throw in a batch of condoms as well - or even just classify them as 'personal healthcare supplies'?!